Oh the story back then was unmatched in it's epicness. Every single cinematic was gripping, particularly the meeting of the three. And Marius'... conclusion, was epic. It was a fucking epic story.

The story in D2 had no narrative other than the those epic cinematic's, they were the story in it's entirety, of the 6 quests per act very few of them were relevant. Kinda demonstrates how less can indeed be more. In saying that I don't have any problems with the story in D3, it lacked wow factor coz I'm 26 having played PC games for near 14 years now, rather than a 14-15 year old playing his first PC game other than SC.

/edit

In regards to the actual topic, don't like the camera angle but alpha is alpha right? Again though I like the graphics of D3, I don't know what people have against colour and a consistent artistic direction tbh.

The art style of D3 as it is now is void of atmosphere. It's just pretty and for me that's not something I can appreciate. Act I in D2 ... amazing music, depressing atmosphere, so awesome. Act I in D3 ... blank, no impression.

The story in D2 had no narrative other than the those epic cinematic's, they were the story in it's entirety, of the 6 quests per act very few of them were relevant. Kinda demonstrates how less can indeed be more. In saying that I don't have any problems with the story in D3, it lacked wow factor coz I'm 26 having played PC games for near 14 years now, rather than a 14-15 year old playing his first PC game other than SC.

I still felt like when you were supposed to be doing something, you knew why. When I was heading into Horizon's realm, I knew why. When I was going into Tal Rasha's tomb, I knew why. When I met the Dark Wanderer at the beginning of Act 3, it had significance.

I definitely felt like the cinematics were reinforcement for the story you played out in the game; where you went, what you were doing.

My problem with Diablo 3, as far as story goes, is that it all felt disconnected, kinda thrown together, and completely lacking gravity. Even Deckard Cain's death (and this kind of pissed me off) was almost an afterthought, not even a cut scene for this huge deal of a guy, who's been a part of the Diablo universe since the beginning.

Just my two cents (or four cents now) on Diablo 3's story.

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 01:38 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Repefe

The art style of D3 as it is now is void of atmosphere. It's just pretty and for me that's not something I can appreciate. Act I in D2 ... amazing music, depressing atmosphere, so awesome. Act I in D3 ... blank, no impression.

I do agree. Diablo is suited for gritty, dark, depressing, not colorful and vibrant.

I still felt like when you were supposed to be doing something, you knew why. When I was heading into Horizon's realm, I knew why. When I was going into Tal Rasha's tomb, I knew why. When I met the Dark Wanderer at the beginning of Act 3, it had significance.

I definitely felt like the cinematics were reinforcement for the story you played out in the game; where you went, what you were doing.

My problem with Diablo 3, as far as story goes, is that it all felt disconnected, kinda thrown together, and completely lacking gravity. Even Deckard Cain's death (and this kind of pissed me off) was almost an afterthought, not even a cut scene for this huge deal of a guy, who's been a part of the Diablo universe since the beginning.

Just my two cents (or four cents now) on Diablo 3's story.

Srs? I thought most peoples problem with it was that it effectively holds your hand the whole way through so that you have no choice but take part in the narrative whilst in D2 you kinda stumbled across it. Everything you do in D3 is relevant to the overarching story, there's no escaping it, whilst in D2 you got quests like Den of Evil, Blood Raven, Countess, Radamant's Lair, Golden Bird, Blade of the Old Religion and Lam Esen's Tome which have nothing to do with the main plot at all but instead are things that you do along the way with very little consequence for missing them.

The only possible excuse you can have for not getting why your doing something in D3 is because you space bar'd the entire way through, not because the story telling is none existent. Hell I could even get behind you saying that the story isn't enjoyable because your rail road'd onto it with no way to actually "explore" the narrative and discover things yourself.

Half tempted to ask whether you got nostalgia vision locked on or not lol.

Srs? I thought most peoples problem with it was that it effectively holds your hand the whole way through so that you have no choice but take part in the narrative whilst in D2 you kinda stumbled across it. Everything you do in D3 is relevant to the overarching story, there's no escaping it, whilst in D2 you got quests like Den of Evil, Blood Raven, Countess, Radamant's Lair, Golden Bird, Blade of the Old Religion and Lam Esen's Tome which have nothing to do with the main plot at all but instead are things that you do along the way with very little consequence for missing them.

The only possible excuse you can have for not getting why your doing something in D3 is because you space bar'd the entire way through, not because the story telling is none existent. Hell I could even get behind you saying that the story isn't enjoyable because your rail road'd onto it with no way to actually "explore" the narrative and discover things yourself.

Half tempted to ask whether you got nostalgia vision locked on or not lol.

I should not have said "disconnected". It's disconnected to me, from what I'm doing, but I think that's because I don't care. It's not gripping. Even Tyrael descending from Heaven seemed weird and... I dunno. I wasn't feeling it. And Mahgda seems like a strange memory now, I hardly remember her significance, whatever it was.

I just remember being very interested in all the major plot points in D2. In D3, it feels (and I'm going to be brutal here) lame. But that's okay. I mean, hey, I thought Of Blood and Honor was a cool read, I really liked it. Sorry Chris, not a fan of this one, though.

I really would have liked more gravity. Everything was super cheesy and scripted (I don't need a floating "You think this is a motherfucking game" cat head telling me what's what in Bastion Keep). I think not having so much story raises the value of the story you do come across, as long as it's well done.

I personally enjoy Diablo 3 just fine. Those screenshots look interesting, and the game looking like that, I would've loved to play it. But a lot of the changes in Diablo 3 made it really fun to play. Im not a huge competitive player, not like WoW, but it offers a nice distraction from time to time.

I'm sorry but i can sit here and read all these people saying that D3 looks good now when it looks like WoW.....

Looking like WoW does not make something look bad, each WoW expansion brings more visually stunning landscapes to that game. What you are complaining about in that regard is the stylization of the art in it.

Diablo 3 uses the same basic engine as WoW (hell, it uses the same basic building blocks as every Blizzard title since Warcraft 3) however it applies them to create a far greater realism in the design of characters and places.

I suppose you are one of the "I like how Diablo 2 looked and D3 should look like that!" crowd. The reality is that Diablo 2 looked like it did because it was running at a ridiculously low resolution and using character fidelity that was only visually better looking than an SNES game due to the larger storage space of a CD.

In other words, the gritty gothic-ness of that game is more due to the lack of ability to see the objects clearly more than any intent on the creators part. Many areas in D3 far surpass the darkest themes of Diablo 2. They are larger and easier to see, so this of course translates to "it looks dumb!".

Originally Posted by melodramocracy

Gold and the 'need' for it in-game is easily one of the most overblown mindsets in this community.

Looking like WoW does not make something look bad, each WoW expansion brings more visually stunning landscapes to that game. What you are complaining about in that regard is the stylization of the art in it.

Diablo 3 uses the same basic engine as WoW (hell, it uses the same basic building blocks as every Blizzard title since Warcraft 3) however it applies them to create a far greater realism in the design of characters and places.

I suppose you are one of the "I like how Diablo 2 looked and D3 should look like that!" crowd. The reality is that Diablo 2 looked like it did because it was running at a ridiculously low resolution and using character fidelity that was only visually better looking than an SNES game due to the larger storage space of a CD.

In other words, the gritty gothic-ness of that game is more due to the lack of ability to see the objects clearly more than any intent on the creators part. Many areas in D3 far surpass the darkest themes of Diablo 2. They are larger and easier to see, so this of course translates to "it looks dumb!".

I think the point is that if people wanted to play cartoon characters, they can play WoW. The expectation/hope was that Blizzard would take D# even further in the direction of realism than D2. While these old screen shots appear to show the first team going that direction, the team that produced the final product we have today went in the OTHER direction, making the franchise look more like WoW.

If I could pick one criticism to level at Blizzard, this would be it. They make generally great products in terms of gameplay... Unfortunately, they all look like Saturday morning cartoons. With MoP, they've even let the cartoony aspect of their visual design bleed into their storyline.

A dedicated WoW player's foray into a non-Blizzard MMO like SWTOR or GW or any other is always pretty much the same, "Holy shit! This looks AWESOME! ... WTF, why doesn't this play like WoW?"

It's a pity that these game studios are so loathe to learn from each other. They all have individual aspects that are so freaking good. I'd love to mash them all up into one super-MMO.

Last edited by Firecrest; 2012-10-04 at 10:30 PM.
Reason: spelling is harde

Looks more like Diablo 2.5 than 3. With that being said I hate how Diablo 3 looks... yes, yes it's been said a billion times already but the game is just too freaking colorful. No gritty, darkish colors to complement the mood. No nothing. And, I am sorry, but modified Starcraft 2 engine for a game we've been waiting for a decade? They really cheaped out on this one. (Just to be clear, I am not saying Starcraft 2 doesn't look good, I just don't think it fits Diablo's universe).